- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 15-4-1993 passed by the Special Judge (D. A. A.), Banda in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 1990- Keshav Prasad Tripathi v. Kamal Kumar Pandey and others.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the present applicant Kamal Kumar Pandey moved an application on 20-8-1988 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Atarra, Banda asserting that he was in possession over the land in dispute (Bara) shown in the map attached to the application. THE applicant further asserted that the opposite parties were trying to take forcible possession over the same. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned called report from the police of Police Station concerned. The police reported that there was a dispute relating to the land in dispute between the parties which is likely to cause breach of peace. On the basis of this report, the learned Magistrate passed preliminary order under Section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 31-8-1988. He also passed order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. on the same day directing the attachment of the property. In pursuance of the notices issued by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, the present applicant Kamal Kumar Pandey and opposite party No. 1 Keshav Prasad Tripathi filed their written statements. The remaining opposite parties did not file any written statement. In his written statement, the opposite party No. 1 asserted that he had purchased the northern portion of the Bara measuring 50' X 30' from Smt. Savitri Devi by registered sale-deed dated 18-7-1988. He further asserted that from the date of sale, he came into possession over the property and since then he was in actual possession of the same. The opposite party No. 1 further asserted that the sourthern portion of the disputed Bara was in possession of his brother Sachchidanand Tripathi in accordance with the mutual settlement between him and Smt. Savitri Devi. The opposite party No. 1 asserted that the applicant was never in possession over the land in dispute. He also asserted that at the time of attachment of property by the Police, he (opposite party No. 1) and his family members were actually found in possession by the S. I. con cerned.
(3.) BOTH the parties produced oral and documentary evidence in support of their claims. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 30-7-1990 held that the applicant Kamal Kumar Pandey was in actual possession over the land in dispute. He also directed that the land in dispute be released in his favour. The oppossite party No. 1 then filed a revision against the order by the learned Magistrate. This revision was heard by Sri Man Pokhi Lal Sharma, Special Judge (D. A. A.), Banda. He allowed the revision by his order dated 15-4-1993 holding that Kamal Kumar Pandey was never in posses sion over the land in dispute. He further directed that the revisionist Keshav Prasad Tripathi and others be put in possession over the land.;